Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 05:00 AM | Comments (35)
Post contains 8 words, total size 1 kb.

A lot of talk lately regarding the return of The Fairness Doctrine with the Democratic retaking of Congress.

Kudos to the leaders of conservative talk-radio, at least in the beginning, but theyÂ’ve slowly become just like like the Republican congress-crittersÂ…entrenched in power and way too comfortable for their own good. Or ours. But, like the MSM, theyÂ’re due to be supplanted and rendered irrelevantÂ…by blogs. LetÂ’s tick off how they now piss off listeners and why their audiences are dwindling:

1. Rush Limbaugh: Still amusing and witty most of the time, when heÂ’s on the air, which is maybe two days a week these days. Half of the show is devoted to the Pittsburgh Steelers and his golf game.

2. Bill OÂ’Reilly: When not selling doormats, books, coffee mugs, t-shirts or whatever, he occasionally makes a point or two.

3. Glenn Beck: Really, dude, if I hear the fucking phrase “The Christmas Sweater” one more time, I’m going to smash my radio into bits. And what is it about you alcoholics (you can’t say “former”) that compels you to share every single moment of your alcoholic life with us?

4. Sean Hannity: Not much to say here. Boring. YouÂ’re nothing without your foil, Alan Colmes.

5. Lars Larsen: CanÂ’t start a segment without mentioning every single station heÂ’s on across the country. Or every any single call he receives.

6. Michael Savage: Son, you’ve gone off the rails into “”Truther” territory. You need to get a grip on reality.

We appreciate the work youÂ’ve doneÂ…but your work is done. WeÂ’ll handle it from here. Now go play golf or something.

Posted by: Open Blog at 09:21 PM | Comments (257)
Post contains 292 words, total size 2 kb.

Anti-Prop 8 protesters have a new stunt. Let your employer know how much he depends on gays as workers... and how flighty and unreliable they can be!

Win-win!

Posted by: Ace at 05:44 PM | Comments (188)
Post contains 40 words, total size 1 kb.

First of all, my objection here is proceduralist. I do not expect any particular result from a subpoena to produce a birth certificate -- other than to establish he does in fact have a birth certificate and is qualified to become president.

In a way this is like Hillary's Emoluments Clause problems. I want Hillary to be Secretary of the State, if only for the drama/comedy value of it. (And also-- that she'll try to be tougher than Obama.)

Nevertheless, I am very bothered by the fact that the Constitution seems to unambiguously disqualify her, and the Congress is not even attempting a superficial fix of the situation by repealing the pay raise her Congress authorized for the Secretary of State. I don't know if that would wholly solve the problem, but at least it would be gesture in the direction of compliance with the Constitution.

For the same reason I insist upon Obama proving his qualifications for office. I don't expect him to be disqualified. I insist upon it because it's in the Constitution and it's rather bad precedent for presidents to begin deciding which parts of the constitution they'll respect.

For those who imagine an endgame of Obama's disqualification, however: Prepare for disappointment.

Not only are most of your factual predicates likely incorrect, but even if they're correct, you still won't see Obama disqualified.

The constitution mandates "natural born" but the meaning of that term is defined *by statute." Congress defines it. This is not uncommon; the constitution offers many very general prescriptions. The congress is invited, implicitly or explicitly, to craft laws implementing the vague prescriptions.

Upshot: Those looking for a very technical statutory disqualification are overlooking the fact that the Congress could, at any time, redefine "natural born" to include Obama -- so even if you "win," you lose.

A statute provided that those born on foreign soil to servicemen or diplomats serving overseas were still "natural born," for example -- which is what makes John McCain "natural born."

The notion that Republicans would stand firm and filibuster such a law, or that Bush would not sign it into law before Obama is due to be inaugurated, seems extraordinary unlikely. Especially when (as some theories have it) we're talking about Obama's mother being eighteen rather than nineteen, and that's why he's not natural born, or Obama's stepfather renounced his citizenship on his behalf, like a kid has any damn say in such things or that he should be bound by his guardian's decisions later in life. That sort of thing.

And to get what accomplished? The inauguration of President Joe Biden?

Many of these arguments about statutory disqualification are ticky-tack stuff. One of the main theories goes like this (if I have it right): Even though children born to citizens in other countries are "natural born" most of the time, a woman has to be 19 or older to take advantage of this. And Obama's mom was younger.

Something like that.

Edit: Goy explains it:

Obama's biological father was a Kenyan citizen and Obama's mother a U.S. citizen who was not old enough to register Obama's birth in Hawaii as a "natural born" United States Citizen.

The laws on the books at the time of BHO's birth (Nationality Act of 1940, rev. 1952) required the U.S. Citizen to have resided in the U.S. for ten years, five of which were after the age of 14. Ann Dunham was only 18 when BHO was born.

Now, come on: Even if this all turns out technically true, does that law, as it stands, make a whole lot of sense? Enough sense that Congress wouldn't just change the law to not specify a minimum age for the natural-born safe harbor?

It's going to strike a lot of people as a very legalistic, technical ticky-tack thing which is basically unfair and doesn't make a whole lot of sense in the first place.

So even if these theories (one of them, at least) prove right, they will not stand. The law would be changed.

At best you're hoping for some political fall-out from Obama hiding this stuff throughout the election And there would be some fall-out, certainly. But an actual disqualification?

Ponder all the facts and technical aspects of laws and court rulings and resultant Congressional inaction on the matter that would have to fall in your favor for the desired outcome to come about -- it's an unlikelihood multiplied by an unlikelihood multiplied by another unlikelihood multiplied by a near impossibility. The odds are extraordinarily low.

I Don't Understand Goy's Point... Since, as I understand it, two non-citizen illegal immigrants can come to the US and have a child here and it will be a "natural born" citizen, how can it be that an American citizen can have a child here and it's not a natural born citizen?

Are you guys sure your statutory cites still hold? The Supreme Court may have overturned the statutes you're relying upon as proof.

UPDATE [Gabe]: This ridiculous conspiracy will never end. Another Obama citizenship suit was distributed to the full Court for cert. consideration.

Keep hope alive!

Posted by: Ace at 04:13 PM | Comments (286)
Post contains 871 words, total size 5 kb.

I really want this one, mostly because I just can't bear the idea that Al Franken might not be lending his considerable talents to Saturday Night Live should he win.

This is a man, after all, who, after working at the same place for 20 years, actually landed a promotion to featured performer rather than just a writer, and who, in the ten subsequent years of working there, managed to produce not one but two somewhat-memorable catchphrases.

Posted by: Ace at 03:04 PM | Comments (47)
Post contains 101 words, total size 1 kb.

A good news, bad news thing.

Mostly bad news.

It would be great news if oil's prices were falling to increasing supply (along with some nontrivial increases in efficiency), but it's falling due to a deep worldwide recession. Less production, less industrial output, less commerce, less trade, less wealth. Cheap gas. Not really a good trade.

Posted by: Ace at 02:34 PM | Comments (70)
Post contains 86 words, total size 1 kb.

Apparently this part of the Constitution is a dead letter, because the Courts will not admit the standing of anyone raising it as an issue.

I don't know if the Court specifically considered Alan Keyes' lawsuit, but, as a contender for the presidency, he undeniably has standing. So apparently the constitution now places no enforceable restrictions on candidates for President whatsoever.

For the record, I believe Obama was born in Hawaii. However, it is not his right to refuse the production of documents establishing his eligibility. John McCain produced his documentation, after all. One should not need to sue a candidate to compel evidence of his right to serve. Such documents should be produced immediately upon declaration, or shortly thereafter.

If you want to attend a very exclusive party, you show the invite at the door. Obama has sought admission to the most exclusive party in the world, but won't show his invite.

Obama and the DNC have been fighting these suits for a half a year. Even if they wanted to fight the suits just to establish they would not allow themselves to be compelled by nuisance suits, they could have produced the birth certificate independently. And they should have.

Instead, they continue fighting to not produce the document. And the Supreme Court has officially ruled that apparently no one in America has the right to challenge a candidate's constitution qualifications and compel the production of such documents.

Thanks to April and Poul.

Mark writes...

Let me say right up front that I believe Obama is a natural born American and is eligible to be President. However, the constitution sets the following requirements for the office of the President:

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

Historically, who verifies that presidents meet these requirements? HavenÂ’t all past presidents had to provide documentation to someone to prove they are actually eligible to be president? IsnÂ’t asking Obama to verify his eligibility to be president standard operating procedure? If not, why not?

Historically, no one officially verifies them. The Constitution does not establish an eligibility-reviewing board, and Congress has not established one to enforce the Constitution's mandate.

Although some mischief might be had with a partisan board attempting to disqualify a candidate frivolously, note that only age and citizenship are constitutional requirements -- so such a hypothetical board would have a very narrow window to fuck around. And of course plainly absurd ruling could be appealed to a court.

However, such situations are common in law -- a right or restriction with no clearly defined executive institution to enforce it -- and the usual resort is that someone with standing sues to vindicate the right or mandate, and the courts issue a subpoena compelling the production of such documents (or whatever is necessary to enforce that right or mandate, as the particular case may require).

I grant that all of these guys -- save one -- lack standing.

But one of these guys does: Alan Keyes. As a minor-party candidate for president, no one can argue with a straight face he is not particularly and specifically affected by the case, which is the requirement for standing. (Vague claims of personal impact based only upon one's status as citizen or taxpayer have long been ruled inadequate to establish standing -- or else all 100 million liberals would be filing 50 lawsuits each against George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, General Petraeus, etc.)

But if a right or requirement appears in the Constitution, someone must have the standing to vindicate it. Either that or, as I say, it's dead letter.

Apparently it's dead letter. The Emoluments Clause is apparently now dead-letter, too, as I don't hear any sounds in Congress to repeal the pay raise for the Secretary of State to at least superficially cure Hillary's constitutional bar against taking that position.

Apparently, as the great Paul Anka once observed, we're "picking and choosing" which parts of the Constitution are still valid law.

Remember the Kat-Mo writes:

I thought they refused to grant the stay without comment? Where did standing come into it?

Well, the suit was dismissed by lower courts based on lack of standing. Although technically the court is not affirming a lower court's reasoning or even necessarily its decision when it simply refuses to act, the court will (and should) act when it finds the lower court's decision clearly erroneous. The fact that they're letting this pass (comment or not) lets the no-standing decisions stand.

Again, I don't know if Keyes' suit is still ongoing, or if his suit was considered. Assuming it's still ongoing, the court should have considered that suit as well, because, look, if a fellow presidential contender doesn't have standing to challenge the eligibility of a rival -- if even he doesn't suffer a specific and particular wrong, assuming his claims are true -- then who does?

Nobody, that's who. Dead letter.

Missing the Point: The wild-eyed liberals pretending to be common-sense "libertarians" at Reason waste no time in labeling conservatives kooky. Which is the whole point of libertarianism, pretty much. Attacking the right relentlessly to ingratiate oneself with the liberal establishment:

How much further will the fight to de-certify Obama go? It wonÂ’t stop if the Electoral College votes for Obama, as the skeptics will try to get a congressman or senator to officially challenge the result. Rep. Chris Cannon of Utah was willing to believe that Bill Ayers wrote Dreams From My Father, so the skeptics might have a chance.

And if every vote certification goes off without a hitch and Obama is inaugurated on Jan. 20? Gary Kreep is ready for that.

“When Obama starts signing executive orders and legislation,” Kreep says, “I’ll be filing lawsuits unless and until he proves he’s an American citizen. Some judge, someday, is going to want this proved on the merits. You can run, but you can’t hide.”

The point is that this is a constitutional mandate. Candidates routinely refuse to release medical, military, and school records. Fine. Well, not so fine; they should disclose. But the constitution makes no demands in these areas. There is no legal compunction along these lines, although there are of course political and ethical imperatives here.

But age and citizenship are, in fact, legal requirements to hold the office. While a candidate like Obama has the right to refuse the release of detailed medical records and school transcripts (though he shouldn't exercise that right; he should, of course, release them), he has no right whatsoever to refuse providing proof of his constitutional eligibility for the office he seeks.

What privacy interests does Barack Obama have in suppressing a document establishing his eligibility for an office he voluntarily seeks?

Incidentally, Reason: Obama almost certainly had Dreams From My Father ghostwritten, as most politicians do. The real question is by whom. We know most politician's ghostwriters; why not Obama's?

Reason poses as too smart to be taken in by such malarkey, and yet they're the ones taking the embarrassingly naive position that of course Obama, like no other politician before him, personally wrote his memoirs.

Yeah. Reason's really showing off its skeptical, independent streak with that one.

CTN... writes that only Donofrio's lawsuit was considered here. Again, I say the SC should have considered them altogether. They're all the same damn case.

Except for one-- Keyes has standing.

Posted by: Ace at 01:46 PM | Comments (274)
Post contains 1294 words, total size 9 kb.

Sure. Guaranteed employment for hacks who couldn't hack it. Great.

Barack Obama sounds like he wants to reach back to the New Deal's Works Progress Administration to jump start the economy with an economic stimulus proposal featuring infrastructure repair. If so, it may be time for the man who would be FDR to take a look at another successful--but largely forgotten--jobs program from the Depression era: the Federal Writers Project.

...

The Federal Writers Project operated from 1935-1939 under the leadership of Henry Alsberg, a journalist and theater director. In addition to providing employment to more than 6,000 out-of-work reporters, photographers, editors, critics, writers, and creative craftsmen and -women, the FWP produced some lasting contributions to American history, culture, and literature...

...Today, there are many dislocated "old media" journalists from newspapers, radio, and television on the street--here I declare my personal interest, as one of them--who could provide a skilled pool to staff a new FWP. But since these journalists represent only a fraction of the larger displaced workforce, it is fair to ask what the public benefit would be of money spent.

This time, the FWP could begin by documenting the ground-level impact of the Great Recession; chronicling the transition to a green economy; or capturing the experiences of the thousands of immigrants who are changing the American complexion. Like the original FWP, the new version would focus in particular on those segments of society largely ignored by commercial and even public media.

Ah. So it's to be more left-wing than NPR. Or the NYT.

Link leads to Newsbusters, with commentary. SPOILER ALERT: They don't think much of this idea.

If this seems goofy to you, consider: Writers and artists are a noisy bunch capable, sometimes, of influencing the public debate. If Barack Obama wanted a legion of jocksniffing sycophantic haigiographers and hacks, this would be a pretty cheap way to get them. Well, I mean, he's already got them, of course. But now they'd be working directly for him, instead of through a proxy like CNN.

The only downside is the public revulsion at yet another bailout for white-collar types while the blue-collars get pinkslips and unemployment checks. But someone in the Cult of Obama might decide the upside is bigger than the downside.

Thanks to CJ.

Posted by: Ace at 01:29 PM | Comments (34)
Post contains 407 words, total size 3 kb.

The power of adult contemporary soft rock.

The sophisticated romance of Eragon.

more...

Posted by: Ace at 01:09 PM | Comments (19)
Post contains 131 words, total size 2 kb.

This keeps coming up. I just want to state once again that 99% of you getting banned are not being banned intentionally.

I think what is happening is this: Comment-spammers -- all those comment advertisments you see for viagra and such -- post under false IPs through an anonymizer, then the system recognizes them as mass spammers, and bans the IP... but they were never really posting from that IP in the first place, just making it appear as if they were.

There are thousands of comment-spams per day, so a lot of IPs get banned. And then of course a real reader uses that IP, and guess what, it's banned.

Just write to me with your IP and the banned message (make sure you're getting the banned message -- if you're not, it's some other problem, like your computer's security system blocking the comment because it doesn't trust the site, which is something you have to fix on your end) and I'll ask Pixy to unban it (he controls the "blacklist").

He's on the other side of the world so sometimes this takes a day or so, and sometimes it takes longer if I miss your message. Try putting "Banned IP" in your subject line so I can do a simple search every few days to see if I've missed one.

Once in a while I do ban people. But usually it's for hardcore trolling, racism, repeatedly calling a female commenter a word that rhymes with bunt, etc. And usually there are warnings first.

Unless you've really deliberately tried to derail commenting or crossed the line in abusing another commenter, these bans are almost certainly inadvertent. Just let me know about them and I'll reverse the accidental ban.

PS: Don't take a nonresponse about a ban as an eff-you. In all likelihood I just missed your email entirely and don't even know you got banned.

Just write me again. Putting "Banned IP" in the subject line.

Posted by: Ace at 12:49 PM | Comments (59)
Post contains 337 words, total size 2 kb.